Chapter 16: Alcoholism and Drug Addiciton Act

Background

The Alcoholism and Drug Addiction Act 1966 allows drug addicts to be compulsorily detained to undergo assessment, detoxification and treatment. The Act is out of date, and there are difficulties in reconciling its broad powers of detention with the rights and protections in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The Ministry of Health is currently reviewing the Act. In Chapter 16, the Law Commission looks at whether a modified regime for compulsory treatment should be part of any new package of drug laws.

Key questions to consider

Should a regime allowing civil committal for the detention and treatment of alcohol and drug dependence be retained? If so, what should its key features be?

Yes. The Drug Foundation agrees with the Law Commission that there is a place for a limited compulsory civil detention and treatment regime containing appropriate safeguards. People who are drug dependent are often incapable of making rational decisions over their substance use and personal welfare. Short-term compulsory intervention may get them to a position where they are able to more readily help themselves. If there was no compulsory regime, their access to treatment might be significantly eroded.

The Drug Foundation supports the following key features of a new civil detention regime:

• Detention and involuntary treatment should only be used as a last resort.
• Only interventions that are necessary to address the risk of harm or danger to the detained person should be authorized.
• A clear threshold should be met before detaining a person for treatment.
• Assessments should only be performed by accredited medical practitioners with expertise in drug and alcohol dependence.  They should be given the power to authorise detention on an interim basis (for example, for five days) for persons who meet the criteria.
• Any person subject to the Act, and others with an interest in their welfare (such as family members), should be able to apply to the Family Court for a review of the decision to detain that person.
• Inspectors should be appointed to ensure that anyone who is detained has access to advocacy and support from an independent lawyer.
• If further compulsory treatment is necessary, the accredited medical practitioner should have to apply to the court which would make this decision and set the maximum period of detention. The court could also have the power to immediately discharge a person.
• A leave of absence from the treatment facility or institution should be provided for.
• The maximum period of detention should be 28 days, subject to an order for extension. Extensions should only be granted by the Court in exceptional circumstances.
• The accredited medical practitioner should be required to release the detained person at any time if the person no longer meets the criteria for detention for treatment.

Should a person only be able to be detained under this regime when all of the following conditions are met?

(a) the person has a dependence on alcohol or other drugs; and

(b) detention and treatment is necessary to protect the person from significant harm to himself or herself; and

(c) the person is likely to benefit from treatment for his or her alcohol or drug dependence but has refused treatment; and

(d) no other appropriate and less restrictive means are reasonably available for dealing with the person.

Yes. The Drug Foundation agrees that compulsory detention and treatment should only be available when all of the above conditions are met. This is an essential safeguard to ensure that the regime is not used inappropriately.

The Drug Foundation does not believe it is appropriate to include the criteria “poses a serious danger to the health or safety of others” as a condition for detention. Unlike the case with mental health legislation, it is not possible to predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy which groups of drug addicts will pose a serious risk to others to justify detaining a person to prevent that risk.